(a) If one were to worry that immediately after the Bedikah, a weasel
carried away some Chametz from one corner of a room to another, or from
one house in the Chatzer to another house - it would mean that one iwould
be obligated to examine all the rooms in the house and all the houses in
the Chatzer simultaneously.

(b) We do not take that contingency into account - because, if we would,
we would also need to worry that perhaps a weasel carried Chametz from one
Chatzer to another, or even from one town to another, and it is
practically impossible to demand that all Jews everywhere, must search
their houses simultaneously.

2)

(a) The reason that 'Meduros ha'Akum Temei'im' - is because we suspect
that a woman may have had a miscarriage and buried the baby under the
floor of the house (as was customary in those times). This only applies if
the man had been living in that house for at least forty days.

(b) It makes no difference whether the gentile is married or not.

(c) This suspicion will not apply in a place where there are weasels or
pigs (who will eat the miscarriages).

(d) If we rely on the weasels eating the flesh, then why should we not
also rely on them eating the bread? And if that is so, why does our
Mishnah not absolve the house-owner from Bedikah even when he actually saw
a weasel taking Chametz?

3)

(a) We can rely on the weasels digging up *flesh* and eating it, says
Rebbi Zeira, but not so much on eating *bread*.

(b) Rava argues that our Mishnah, where there is *definitely* Chametz
(leaving us with *one* Safek - whether the weasel ate it or not), is
anyway not comparable to the Mishnah in Ohalos (where there is a double
Safek - i.e. maybe there was no miscarriage, and even if there was, maybe
a weasel ate it). Consequently, argues Rava, there is no Kashya in the
first place.

(c) 'Chaver she'Meis, ve'Hini'ach Megurah Me'lei'ah Peiros, va'Afilu Hen
B'nei Yoman, Harei Hen be'Chezkas Mesukanim'. 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei
Vadai' does not apply there - either because it is no Safek that *perhaps*
the Chaver Ma'asered the fruit before he died, but *Vadai* (like Rebbi
Chanina taught: that a Chaver will never produce any food which is not
fully Ma'asered; or because the fruit cannot be considered *Vadai* Tevel,
only a *Safek* (like Rebbi Oshaya taught: that one can exempt oneself from
having to take Ma'asros, by bringing the grain into the house before it
has been threshed and winnowed, and threshing and winnowing it there. If
one does that, it does not bear the title 'Tevel'.

(d) 'B'nei Yoman' means - that the Chaver died on the very same day that
he had winnowed the crops.

4)

(a) We have just explained that if someone brings un-winnowed crops into
the house, and performs the winnowing and the Miru'ach there - they do not
bear the title 'Tevel', in which case, he, as well as his animal, is
permitted to eat them. The Beraisa mentions 'animal', because an animal
may eat even mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas a person may not, since the Chachamim
decreed that these crops are Tevel mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) He is permitted to feed his animals their regular meals from thesse
crops, because the Din of casual eating is confined to humans, and not to
animals.

(c) In spite of the Isur de'Rabbanan mentioned earlier - he is permitted
to eat these crops without the need to Ma'aser them, even mi'de'Rabbanan.
Why is that? Because, since the Isur is only mi'de'Rabbanan, we rely on
the Chaver having Ma'asered them.

(a) The Dinim of Tum'as Yoledes do apply to a non-Jewish slave-girl - as
we see from the story with the Kohen and the miscarriage.

(b) The Kohen peeped into the pit in which one of the family slaves had
had a miscarriage - to ascertain whether the miscarriage was a male or a
female (in order to know how many days of Tum'ah and Taharah the mother
had to observe).

(c) By doing so, the Kohen was violating the prohibition on a Kohen to
become Tamei Mes.

(d) 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' did not apply there - either because
it was only a *Safek* Nefel, making it a double- Safek: 1. a Safek
whether it was a Nefel or not, and even if it *was* 2. perhaps a weasel
had eaten it; or because, seeing as it was the habitat of weasels, who
would definitely drag the miscarriage away, the baby was certainly no
longer in the pit (whether they had eaten it or not), and it was therefore
a case of Vaday and Vaday.

6)

(a) How do we reconcile our Mishnah (which does not contend with the
possibility that a weasel may have dragged the Chametz away), asks the
Gemara, with the next Mishnah, which says 'Mah she'Meshayer, Yanichenu
be'Tzin'ah' - in case a weasel takes some of the Chametz and carries it
away?

(b) Our Mishnah speaks on the *thirteenth* of Nisan, Abaye suggests, when
there is plenty of Chametz around, and the weasel will not see any need to
hide the Chametz that it found; whereas the next Mishnah speaks on the
*fourteenth*, when there is a shortage of Chametz, as a result of which,
the weasels will hide the Chametz that they find.

(c) Are weasels prophets, asks Rava, to realize that there is a shortage
of Chametz, and then to link that to the fact there will be not be any
more Chametz for eight days?

(d) Rava therefore explains the next Mishnah to mean that one must put the
Chametz in a discreet place, because, although we do not contend with
unknown weasels taking Chametz from the pile, that does rule out the
possibility that a weasel may just take it *in front of us* and hide it.

7)

(a) If there are ten piles of bread lying in a house that has already been
examined, nine of them - Matzah, and one - Chametz, and we see a mouse
taking from one of them, but we don't know from which one - the house
needs to be searched again, because of the principle 'Kol Kavu'a
ke'Mechtzah u'Mechtzah Dami' (just like the case when someone bought from
a store in a town where nine stores were selling Neveilos and one, Kosher
meat, and he cannot recall from which store he bought - we assume that he
bought from the shop that sold Neveilos, as if half the shops were selling
Neveilos).

(b) If the mouse took the piece of bread from the floor, after someone
had, without our knowledge, taken it from one of the piles, and placed it
there - then we assume that the bread was taken from the majority (i.e.
from one of the piles of Matzah), because of the principle 'Kol de'Parish,
me'Rubah Parish, meaning that as long as the bread was not found in its
original location, we say that it came from the majority.

(c) If there were two piles, one of Matzah and one of Chametz, and two
mice came and took a piece, one from each of the piles (though we don't
know which took from which). Then one of the mice went into a room that
was searched, the other into a room that was not - we assume that the
mouse that took the Chametz, took it into the room that was *not yet*
searched, and the mouse that took the Matzah, took it into the house that
*was*. Consequently, the room that was searched will not need to be
searched again.

(d) True, the Beraisa of 'Shtei Kupos' - is speaking about Terumah
de'Rabbanan - but our case (of two piles of Chametz and Matzah, in front
of two houses) is only de'Rabbanan, too. How so? Because it speaks when
he has already made Bitul Chametz, because *then*, Bedikas Chametz is only
mi'de'Rabbanan'.